Productive ownership-benefit scenarios

[anticap]

A friend recently sent me a long rambling e-mail, which I thought might spark interesting discussion here, so I've summarized it in my own words...

--

First, suppose we identify three spectra of production:

1. Mechanization: ranging from mostly labor-based to mostly mechanized; most people, aside from, e.g., primitivists, will view mechanization as an advancement.

2. Control: ranging from few to many; "few" means that a minority will control the mechanization and will employ the majority to utilize it as the minority deems appropriate; "many" means that a majority will control the mechanization and will utilize it as they deem appropriate.

3. Benefit: ranging from shallow to deep; "shallow" means that the benefits of mechanization will be apportioned based on supposed deeds; "deep" means that those benefits will be apportioned based on perceived needs.

If we discount ideological primitivists, then the mechanization spectrum, although dependent on available materials and the level of technology, will see the control and benefit spectra fall somewhere toward the mechanized end.

Thus,

* We have mechanized production with either minority or majority control of that mechanization.

* Within both the above possibilities, we can have either shallow or deep apportionment of the benefits of mechanization.

This presents us with four hypothetical control-benefit scenarios:

1. minority-shallow: selfish elitism; production controlled by a wealthy/powerful minority for their own benefit

2. minority-deep: paternalistic elitism; production controlled by a wealthy/powerful minority for the benefit of the majority

3. majority-shallow: voluntary servility; production controlled by the majority for the benefit of a minority

4. majority-deep: egalitarian communalism; production controlled by the majority for the benefit of all

--

In order not to offend anyone here, I've omitted my friend's examples for each scenario, but I think we can use our own imaginations there. As for number 3, however, it may cause confusion, so I will say that my friend used the example of a "primitive-minded" (his term) yet mechanistically-advanced and majoritarian society, which centered around a cultish elevation of a demigod class that had no real power but enjoyed a pampered life of reverence. In other words, a sci-fi scenario that we can safely dismiss for the sake of this discussion.

So then, what does the OI gang think about all this? Which of the above would you choose? (Don't say number 3 just to be evasive. :rolleyes:)

[anticap]

Nobody here has any thoughts about this?

[LeftSideDown]

Nobody here has any thoughts about this?

He draws no conclusions. It'd be like me posting a story about a blue unicorn, not analyzing it at all, and then asking what people think about it.

He set up different structures regarding control of production... so what?

[anticap]

He draws no conclusions.

He draws distinct conclusions: that there are four hypothetical control-benefit scenarios available under the presuppositions of the exercise.

[LeftSideDown]

He draws distinct conclusions: that there are four hypothetical control-benefit scenarios available under the presuppositions of the exercise.

So he created a scenario with limits he set and defined them... okay?

[anticap]

So he created a scenario with limits he set and defined them... okay?

Right, and I deemed the limits of the scenario reasonable, and solicited responses to the conclusions.

Just admit it: you recognize scenario 4 as the only legitimate one (from among the three realistic ones), but you advocate scenario 1 (or, at best, 2).

[LeftSideDown]

Right, and I deemed the limits of the scenario reasonable, and solicited responses to the conclusions.

What conclusions? Here, let me do something similar.

If it is granted that white paper turns red in red dye and that it also turns blue in blue dye, then
1) We can have all red paper, no blue
2) We can have mostly red, but some blue (kinda purplish)
3) We can have all blue paper, no red
4) We can have mostly blue, but some red (kinda purplish)

What is the point of me doing this exercise?


Just admit it: you recognize scenario 4 as the only legitimate one (from among the three realistic ones), but you advocate scenario 1 (or, at best, 2).

No I don't. I think the commanding of considerable resources is a specialized skill and it shouldn't be decided upon by people who do not have this knowledge. I do not think Scientific experiments should not be conducted by a majority and I do not think capital should be allocated by one either.

[anticap]

What conclusions? Here, let me do something similar.

If it is granted that white paper turns red in red dye and that it also turns blue in blue dye, then
1) We can have all red paper, no blue
2) We can have mostly red, but some blue (kinda purplish)
3) We can have all blue paper, no red
4) We can have mostly blue, but some red (kinda purplish)

What is the point of me doing this exercise?

Are you this stubborn offline? Why can't you just play along? It can only be for the reason I gave previously.

Anyway, your analogy stinks.


No I don't. I think the commanding of considerable resources is a specialized skill and it shouldn't be decided upon by people who do not have this knowledge. I do not think Scientific experiments should not be conducted by a majority and I do not think capital should be allocated by one either.

That's lovely, but it's also a dodge. My allegation was that, within the confines of the exercise, you would advocate either 1 or 2.

Let's stop now. We've established that you find the exercise pointless and uninteresting. I'd have preferred if you hadn't chimed in just to say that. The idea was to get you to pick one, and then discuss your reasons. I don't see why this is so difficult; people play these sorts of games all the time without getting all bent out of shape. But just forget it.